Rising Stench
Last night I noted a rather transparent move by Hillary Clinton's New Hampshire campaign co-chair that stunk of desperation. Robert Novak today tees off on yet another transparent, below the belt campaign smear by the Clinton camp that only increases the stench of desperation. Novak is merciless here.
David Axelrod, the seasoned Chicago Democratic operative who is chief strategist for Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign, was taken by surprise in the last minute of CBS's "Face the Nation" on Dec. 2. Howard Wolfson, Sen. Hillary Clinton's spokesman, accused Obama of running a "slush fund." In fact, the Clinton campaign was spreading that story privately months ago.
Last summer, a senior Clinton aide told a famous Democrat believed to favor Obama that the Illinois senator was using his "leadership" political action committee to spread money around the country to grease his presidential prospects. That message was private when Clinton seemed far ahead in the race for the Democratic nomination. It became public when Obama threatened to overtake her.
Before Wolfson spoke out, one of Clinton's close supporters was spreading word of unspecified defects in Obama that should deter Democrats from supporting him. This is the Clinton style that has proved effective for two decades, but Obama has continued to close the gap. This attack mode works best when the accusations are hidden from public view.
Last summer, a few Clinton insiders — headed by her Senate chief of staff, Tamera Luzzatto — paid a presumably social visit to the Cape Cod, Mass., vacation home of a prestigious Democrat reported to be in Obama's corner. Luzzatto warned that Obama was ethically challenged because of his leadership PAC. My sources indicated that this was not an isolated incident and that the slush-fund story was spread widely.
A month ago, a Democrat close to Clinton, though not on her Senate or campaign staff, approached a party activist who has not made a commitment to a candidate with this message: Skeletons in Obama's closet would make him vulnerable if nominated. He did not elaborate and said that the Clinton campaign would keep its anti-Obama information to itself, remembering mutually destructive assaults between Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt in 2004 that facilitated John Kerry's nomination.
The Clinton campaign denied all this, claiming it was a Republican plot. In truth, there was no Republican source for this story. In the wake of these denials, Wolfson made his slush-fund accusation on "Face the Nation" shortly after polls showed Obama passing Clinton for the lead in Iowa's Jan. 3 caucuses:
Is Hillary this scared or is her campaign this inept? Even if Clinton manages to get the nomination (even though that does not look as inevitable as it used to) she is really taking a terrible risk here. Even party loyalists are more than a bit taken aback by the level of viciousness they see in Clinton. Moves like this, last second ambush attacks make her look pretty unappealing to the uncommitted middle. A candidate that has the kind of high negative ratings that Clinton has cannot afford to alienate a single potential voter. I think this will come back to haunt her, one way or the other.
By crosspatch, Thursday, 13 December , 2007 @ 11:36 am
“Is Hillary this scared or is her campaign this inept?”
I don’t think it is either one. I believe the Clinton campaign is doing pretty much what the Clintons have always done. The difference this time is that there are people these days who are going to dig into things and report the truth of the matter.
10 years ago if she had said that the story originated with the Republicans, the news media would have quoted her on that and left it alone. They would not dig into anything. The press did that the entire time the Clintons were in office. They would report something, even if bad news, and just leave it at that. The press would never go digging into Clinton business. They would report what was found under any rocks the Republicans turned over (and then pat themselves on the back for being “fair” and being “hard on the Clintons”) but they would never go digging themselves.
The differences these days are A: good bloggers with good sources and B: media outlets such as Fox that give who aren’t carrying water for the DNC a place to air their story.
By NortonPete, Thursday, 13 December , 2007 @ 12:10 pm
I agree with everything above. She might still get the nomination, but I think she will lose the election. Remember, know your enemy. These are people that would demand a “do over” if their team lost by a small margin.
They are not like you or us. They like to be pandered to, lied to, especially if the lie comforts them. We are living in two different Americas and it doesn’t have anything to do with race or financial status. Its self esteem and character that are separating us.
By feeblemind, Thursday, 13 December , 2007 @ 3:16 pm
Older readers may remember college football in the 1970s. The wishbone offense was in ascendency. It was difficult to stop. Today it is virtually unheard of. Was Clinton Inc attack politics, the polictical wisbone offense of the 90s? Have the defenses caught up with it? Time will tell. Obama may yet pull a Howard Dean and flame out. What intrigues me this time around is the polling numbers. I don’t recall Slick’s numbers ever evaporating like the Dark Queen’s. Maybe the old tricks won’t work this time?
By Mwalimu Daudi, Thursday, 13 December , 2007 @ 3:24 pm
Only once, as I recall, did William Jefferson Clinton fail to win election/re-election to public office. Hilly the Hun won in both of her attempts. They won doing just what they are doing now. Why mess with a winning formula?
And if the Hun does win the nomination (very likely, in my opinion), you can bet the loyalists who are presently aghast will dutifully fall in line and publicly worship her. Nothing succeeds like success!
By Mockin'bird, Thursday, 13 December , 2007 @ 5:01 pm
Hillary is a sociopath.
Her campaign workers see this modus operandis andit must make some of them very uncomfortable. They need the job, and the money, but are disgusted.
If socialist solutions are so good, then the means should be as virtuous as the end result.